The point you wrongly made was that water is made from carbon, and I couldn't resist a wind up over your simple error. What I hadn't banked on though was you being too precious put your hands up and post ever stranger explanations and pretend you meant otherwise, so thanks for the laughs.

^^^ If you're searching for comedy value, may I suggest Freaks Topic.So what you say?

uraqt wrote:

UCI has to go!!! right now.!!!!

However much certain elements of the sport are despised, if you decide to change too much you could end up with discipline which is totally unrecognizable and with historical disjoint. Who wants that?

The sport evolves but not change abruptly.

Wingnut wrote:

I remember reading an article years ago where a frame manufacture actually said it was the parameters of bicycle components that were holding them back with regard to constructing lighter, stronger frames...they were being built to accommodate component specifications...

,,From a purely objective perspective it's precisely these parameters which keep specifications in check. If regulation is removed, who knows what manner of equipment we could have, for good or for ill. And if a new direction is taken there is no going back. Bringing with it high likelihood of potential problems which are irreversible because they are untried and untested.

The beauty of engineering a bicycle is you can see a finished product relatively quickly with all the technology that;s put inside it. There is nothing truly holding industry back. The industry works according to given specification with which to innovate. You change the spec, you change the product.

_________________No one would have believed in the formative years of the twenty first century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns

However much certain elements of the sport are despised, if you decide to change too much you could end up with discipline which is totally unrecognizable and with historical disjoint. Who wants that?

The sport evolves but not change abruptly.

I would argue that 95% of the people miss the evolution of anything because it's to slow, The UCI missed radios, GPS tracking, drugs, helmets, DI2, TV coverage and frame changes in the hour record. (from what I saw in that thread you would have to be a fool to attempt it, the rules sound like the USA tax laws) . History of sports in the long run is worthless, improvement in all aspects of life made it purely academic.

Horze wrote:

From a purely objective perspective it's precisely these parameters which keep specifications in check. If regulation is removed, who knows what manner of equipment we could have, for good or for ill. And if a new direction is taken there is no going back. Bringing with it high likelihood of potential problems which are irreversible because they are untried and untested.

The beauty of engineering a bicycle is you can see a finished product relatively quickly with all the technology that;s put inside it. There is nothing truly holding industry back. The industry works according to given specification with which to innovate. You change the spec, you change the product.

"joking (I KNOW) we wound be on Lotus super bikes". Seriously you can see that some new directions have been taken and you can go back. Mavic factory wheels have not stopped old school 32 spoke wheels, BB30 and it's family of bottom brackets haven't killed square taper yet and fancy carbon frames haven't put Richard Sachs and Dario Pegoretti out of business ( given that they are special cases but NAHBS is bigger than ever.) DI2 is not going to kill cable shifting in the next 10 years.

In this day of internet reviews, if products are sub standard, it's your fault for buying it. You can be an expert in anything you want, as fast as you can read. It's forcing manufactures to explain why and how the build thing and the trade off they make, take the Cervelo RCA, First Watt amps, Apple and organic foods. Why would you buy anything that you are not 100% sure will meet your needs. Can't remember the last time I had a bad meal at a restaurant thanks to yelp, chowhound and million other sites.

I'm having a really hard time following what you're trying to say here. What do you mean "The UCI missed radios, GPS tracking, drugs, helmets, DI2, TV coverage and frame changes in the hour record"? You mean they didn't ban these things?

And press fit bottom brackets may not have killed traditional threaded BBs, but square taper is all but dead save for one or two manufacturers like Sugino and Paul. I can't think of another company that makes them off the top of my head. It wasn't PFBB standards that killed the square, it's external cups that did that damage.

Yes, the UCI missed all those things, they changed the rules after teams/people used them in races. They are wrong or late or still clueless about all those things. ( I left out my personal fav the whole women's cycling thing, let's just call that a complete no show)

Example the TV coverage hasn't change in 100 years, they still can't show all of the race and miss key points in the race following some "french dude" that has no impact on anything. Come on it's 2013 I have GPS on my wrist I should be able to see exactly were any one racer is at any time. let alone get a 100% accurate finish time (Ted King)

People set the hour record with no or limited equipment rules and now they have some BS rule about 'similar' to the one Merckx used. WTF is 'similar'. (rules you could drive a truck though)

Drugs they stuck their head in the sand and helmets were were not required till 2003, I had a bell helmet in 1980, 20 years late.

Not sure about square taper is dead, you still can get campy stuff and I think they are still making the bottom brackets. (For sure the track guys are still using them) : ) My point you can go back if you want, might cost a little.

Still not following you. How is UCI to blame for how networks choose to film and broadcast races? Watch five different networks during the TDF and you'll see five different takes of the race. As for GPS, I again fail to see how UCI has anything to do with that. I distinctly recall seeing some Strava posts from TDF racers this year of their race log after a few stages. Just because racers/teams/broadcast networks choose not to use that doesn't mean it's the UCI's fault that you don't get the perfect race coverage you want so badly. AS for helmets, how does not requiring them have anything to do with anything? Just because you can go out and buy X accessory doesn't mean that pro racers need to use them. Do you expect UCI to start requiring all racers to wear skinsuits at all times and only use aero road helmets now that they exist?

Your posts are all over the place. In one paragraph you're criticizing the UCI for thing's they have nothing to do with, then you hop into criticisms of the rules they enforce, then go the opposite direction about the rules they don't enforce. Ultimately, none of this has ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand:

Advances in frame technology.

Unless you're going to enlighten us as to how the UCI is or isn't impacting frame design (aside from weight, 3:1 aero shapes, non-functional fairings, and double triangle geometry), you might be best off making another thread somewhere else about your problems with the UCI. I imagine there are already plenty.

I wouldn't be so sure of this. They do actually have some Clue not to be Clueless.If they were really Clueless, they probably wouldn't have any of their Rules. The equipment certification which was recently introduced is precisely to curtail the bleeding-edge activity of the industry with respect to the essence of the sport.

The industry is free to innovate and there's nothing stopping any individual from their pursuits. So there's no reason to bring UCI into the discussion.

uraqt wrote:

Yes, the UCI missed all those things, they changed the rules after teams/people used them in races. They are wrong or late or still clueless about all those things. ( I left out my personal fav the whole women's cycling thing, let's just call that a complete no show)

Not sure about square taper is dead, you still can get campy stuff and I think they are still making the bottom brackets. (For sure the track guys are still using them) : ) My point you can go back if you want, might cost a little.

C

The sport itself has somewhat considerable social bearing. And certainly historical one too. "Things" ought to and do progress in smooth evolution. That is why I say once a certain direction is taken, of many possible ones, you can't genuinely go back. The only real and true direction is the fundamental one which should hold true to essence and spirit of the sport. There are number of other cycling disciplines worth considering too. But changing Rules isn't going to make for "better cyclist" or "better cycling" by any means. Each game has it's own set of rules.

_________________No one would have believed in the formative years of the twenty first century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns

Yes, that rule means that pro races can't use equipment that isn't readily available to the consumer market.

And the UCI does add a lot to the sport. They exist to keep the equipment field relatively even and relatively slow to evolve. The second part is actually highly beneficial to bicycling as a sport because it causes a good rate of trickle-down from high-end race bikes to consumer bikes. The whole "preservation of the traditional bicycle" thing exists so that we will continue to have actual bike races to follow. Without that, all bike races would look like this:

Yuck.

Anyway, the UCI doesn't prevent anybody from making anything. They only stop it being used in the pro circuit. But that didn't stop full suspension mountain bikes. It didn't stop Cannondale making the lefty. It hasn't stopped Specialized making road disc frames. It hasn't stopped dozens of manufacturers making insane triathlon bikes. As long as there are people out there who want to buy something, the manufacturers will be happy to oblige. The UCI sits and watches and slowly incorporates those things into the pro circuit as it sees fit (such as hydro rim brakes).

Now, they do plenty of stupid things, don't get me wrong. But they do have good reasons for most of it.

I'm looking forward to the advances in aluminum. Years ago I had a Park Pre made out of straight gauge aluminum that was terribly harsh and dangerous to ride. I swore never to ride an aluminum bike again. I went from a custom steel with fairly aggressive geometry to a high end carbon frame. Both are comfortable rides the steel being more spirited.

Several weeks back I had the opportunity to ride a Cad10 for a weekend. I was shocked at the level of comfort. I ride some rough country roads and I was surprised by the way the Cannondale rode. Still not as comfortable as the steel or carbon but I found it refreshing to feel connected to the road.

I've been intrigued and wanting to try a higher end aluminum frame again, maybe a Storck Visioner??

We asked UCI Technical Collaborator Johan Kucaba if the UCI still believes that a bike lighter than 6.8kg poses a significant safety risk to riders. He explained:

“The rule 1.3.019 has been introduced and has been created as many other rules of the UCI Technical Regulation by an ergonomist expert in cycling. This specialist, with the advice of other experts, has defined that 6,8Kg is the minimum weight acceptable for a bicycle, for an essential reason that is the manoeuvrability of the bicycle. Of course, technical risks related to composites materials have also been considered, but the primary reason of this rule is the manoeuvrability. We therefore believe that bicycles of 5 Kg (for example) pose significant risks of manoeuvrability.”

What does “manoeuvrability” refer to? Mr Kucaba further explained:

“Manoeuvrability is the property of the bicycle has to be driven properly, correctly. We all know that different bicycles offer different performance, particularly in terms of manoeuvrability, and we believe that a bicycle of 5Kg would be very bad even dangerous to manoeuvre, to drive. The weight has a role in manoeuvrability of a bicycle because it mainly brings stability to the bicycle. The UCI is therefore concerned about it because the safety of the riders would be directly affected.”

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum